2009 realistic war movieRating: 18/20 (Jen: 17/20)
Plot: In occupied France, Jewish-American soldiers brutally kill Nazis and collect their scalps. Meanwhile, pretty Shosanna, a young woman who witnessed the murder of her entire family after they were discovered hiding on a dairy farm, meets German war hero Fredrick Zoller. As he becomes more and more interested in her, she finds out that the movie theater she operates will be premiering Goebbels' new film, coincidentally the detailing of Zoller's heroism. She plots her revenge as the Basterds also plan how they can use the premiere to add to their scalp collection.
First off, Christoph Waltz as the "villain" in this movie is terrific. An early favorite for my actor of the year award. On the other hand, I'm not sure what to think about Brad Pitt here. His character and especially his accent don't make sense, and I'm not sure if that's because he's terrible or if I'm missing part of the point. He's a heroic hick, an homage (parody?) to Sergeant York maybe, and so goofy that it almost has to be intentional. This is a complex movie about the making of war movies, about revisionist history, about propaganda, and about the nature of heroism. This sucker's got depth, and more than any other movie I can remember seeing, it's really two films in one. You've got the very entertaining, very violent, and very humorous stuff on the surface, but there's so much subtext that it almost feels like a second movie underneath. This movie is a lot of fun to watch and a lot of fun to think about for a few days after you watch it. Tarantino toys with audience expectations and emotions enough to annoy a lot of people, but it's great seeing a director who is so sure of himself that he knows he can do anything he wants. It's almost to the point where the movie itself seems cocky. Other movies probably hate Inglourious Basterds because it's so stuck on itself and thinks it's all that. The extremely lengthy chunk of dialogue to start the movie, dialogue long enough to turn off anybody coming to the theater to see some war action and Tarantino stylized violence, is exceptionally gripping. Almost all the dialogue is great actually. The stylized violence is there, too, and it's also gripping. As with most of his work, Tarantino's movie wears its influences very well. There are more than a handful of scenes here, too many to mention them specifically, that are so amazingly executed that I had to pick my jaw up off the floor afterwards. An impressive work of art, and a huge comeback following Tarantino's dismally worthless little car movie.
7 comments:
I really don't know what to do with this film. On the one hand, as a collection of great scenes "Basterds" is extrodinary. Every scene involving the great Waltz, as well as the basement scene, should be shown in film schools. The sustained level of tension and the unbeatable dialogue show that Tarantino capable of being today's greatest director.
Unfortunately, at many other points in the film Tarantino can be viewed as a child with a fun toy that nobody says no to. There are so many cutesy touches and over-the-top moments (including the mentioned Pitt character) where you can almost see the geeky Tarantino giggling off-screen,that it is difficult to stay in the movie. Coupled with that is the wildly revisionist fantasy ending that is at such odds with history that I was left shaking my head. What was this? Jewish wish fulfillment? A Tatantino dream? It is so wild and untrue that it moves the movie from potential classic to simply a Tarantino novelty.
There are many awesome touches and moments in "Basterds" (I love the repeated Leone homages), and anyone who loves film should see it, but it lacks a cohesiveness and logic that make me see it as a tragic miss. The "Pulp Fiction" and "Resevoir Dogs" Tarantino is here. If only he would stop playing with his toys and pay attention. A 16.
Yeah I was surprised how little people talked about his Leone shit in the reviews I read, maybe it was just too obvious, but the whole opening being like Once Upon A Time In The West was awesome...
the stupid Bowie song stopped it from being pretty perfect for my wife, and in retrospect, that was really really dumb...
I loved this flick, saw it in the theatre and it's downloaded on my HD ready to go when the urge strikes...... also I'm really glad he explained how the German knew the guy was a a Brit in the basement... I'd have been pissed if he didn't
I disagree about this lacking cohesion and logic. And I generally think of Tarantino as a kid playing with toys, but I actually think it's pretty mild here. I forgot about that Bowie song which seemed completely out of place. The other thing I really didn't like was the handwritten names and arrows that appeared on the screen. That was a little too playful.
But back to the lack of cohesion and logic...I had the same feelings myself as I was watching the movie, but I thought it tied everything together very nicely at the end. You were supposed to shake your head while watching the "wildly revisionist fantasy ending," weren't you? Isn't that the whole point? People should shake their heads during all not-so-wildly revisionist war movies, shouldn't they? Tarantino takes the idea of films creating history and its heroes to a really absurd level. If anything, I'd say the movie wasn't subtle enough in making its point, the point that I think gave it that cohesion.
At least Tarantino didn't put himself in the movie...
You forgot to mention the 'Kill Bill' movies and 'Jackie Brown' along with 'Pulp' and 'Dogs'...
Lots of Leone in the second 'Kill Bill' movie, too. But yeah, the influence of Leone is obvious from the moment we see the "Once Upon a Time. . ." title of his first chapter.
It didn't have cohesion of tone (semi-realistic drama turns hysterical) and I didn't get any deeper meaning he was trying to convey. maybe it went so over0the-top because he wanted to make sure that no one thought any of this was real history, but sadly, I think many are ignorant enough to believe this movie.
Four logic issues off the top of my head:
1. NO sniper could take out 300 or so by himself.
2. No way Hitler and all of his high command would attend a movie in Paris in post-Normandy France.
3. Very impressively intelligent actress would have eventually remembered having left the autograph in the basement.
4. Unless Pitt was monumentally stupid, he would have known the gig was up once Waltz started speaking Italian.
Ultimately, "Basterds" was a film that I tried very hard to buy into, but ended up throwing up my hands and saying "what the hell"?
"Jackie Brown" and the "Kill Bill" films are very good, but I don't think they are masterpieces like the other two, and there are scenes in this that I liked much more than JB or KB's.
The more I think about it, the more I'm sure it's about popular film (specifically war movies--'The Dirty Dozen,' 'Sergeant York,' 'The Green Berets,' etc) as propaganda films.
Tone? Nothing stood out to me other than the words that appeared on the screen.
"Many are ignorant enough to believe this movie." What? You can't be serious. I don't think anybody's going to watch this movie and think that Hitler and Goebbels died that way. Did you notice, by the way, that Emil Jannings also perished in the theater?
1) part of the point
2) yeah, that's pretty absurd...Hitler was quite the movie fan though. 'Metropolis' was one of his favorite movies (referenced in IB?) and I know he privately watched 'The Great Dictator'...but in a small theater in Paris? No.
3) I'm sure that wasn't on her mind. She didn't have the autograph anyway, did she?
4) The Italian scene may have been a bit too comic.
You've been an amazing blog-master today. Six new reviews and some good arguments. Nice.
The autograph was left on the bullet-riddled body of the nice guy. Maybe she thought she shot holes through it.
My concern is that idiots might believe in scalp-collecting Jewish squads (at the very least through the previews). What was the saying about never underestimating the stupidity of the American public? I see your point about what may be Tarantino's point, but it doesn't make me accept the ridiculous aspects of the film any more.
Of course I'm going to agree about the gullibility of the American masses...there are people out there who saw the previews for the film and probably think it's based on historical fact.
There might even be Brad Pitt fans (read: not Tarantino or even movie fans) who went to see the film and believe that it's based on historical fact.
These are the same people who believe every single scene in 'Sergeant York' is 100% real.
But anybody who has seen Tarantino's other movies (probably the main audience for this one) would see "Written by Tarantino" and know exactly what was up. If that didn't give it away, the "Once Upon a Time" would make most people realize that he's in the popular historical fairy tale genre. You know, like 'The Green Berets'...
Post a Comment